In
the wake of the clergy sex abuse scandal bishops have rushed to implement
programs to protect children and comply with policies developed at their
2002 meeting in Dallas. Part of the strategy in many dioceses is mandatory
fingerprinting of all employees and those volunteers who work with children.
But fingerprinting the innocent is a bad idea for six good reasons.
(1) It masks the real problems that caused the scandals – clergy
homosexuality and dissent; (2) gives a false sense of security while
ignoring legal abuse; (3) violates privacy and demeans the innocent
by creating a suspect class of Catholics; (4) implies secular authority
over the Church; (5) drives a wedge between the flock and their pastor,
and (6) is the work of bureaucrats, not apostles. For all these reasons
prudent members of the faithful should just say no to fingerprinting.

(1)
Fingerprinting masks the real problems that caused the scandals

The
bulk of abuse cases documented in the John Jay Report, 81 percent, involved
homosexual priests molesting adolescent boys.1
But the bishops’ strategy redirects the problem to sex abuse in
the culture at large. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB) has no plans to ban homosexuals from the priesthood or remove
those engaged in gravely evil, but legal, sexual behavior. Instead,
most bishops are requiring background checks and fingerprinting of thousands
of innocent clergy, employees, and lay volunteers. In my own diocese
(Arlington, Virginia) some 15,000 are affected.

Not only is clergy homosexuality not addressed, it is systematically
downplayed. Rev. Edward J. Burns, Executive Director of the Secretariat
for Vocations and Priestly Formation of the USCCB, told the New Hampshire
Union Leader in 2002 that homosexuality is not an automatic bar
to ordination. “Some dioceses and seminaries have identified that
a man with same-sex attraction is not likely to be a candidate for a
particular diocese or seminary. Other[s]… will say they have to
look at that on a case-by-case basis.”2 Fr. John Folda, rector of St. Gregory the Great Seminary
in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska takes a less nuanced approach: “We
don’t take homosexual candidates.”3

Lincoln’s ban on homosexuals is unfortunately rare. At the 2005
Religious Education Congress in Los Angeles, the largest such gathering
in the United States, speakers endorsed homosexual priests. According
to reporter Paula Doyle, Tom Beaudoin, assistant professor of religious
studies at Santa Clara University, told a packed workshop that “talking
in a ‘more adult way’ about the blessings and challenges
of gay priests similar to the way blessings and challenges of straight
priests are discussed will allow Catholics to become ‘more human’
and ‘more holy with each other…so that at long last our
church in this regard can finally begin to deal with reality.’”4 Another panelist, Fr. James Martin,
S.J., associate editor of America magazine, proposed “public
models of gay priests” to counter “the stereotype of the
gay priest as child abuser.”5
Congress organizers also invited a partnered Episcopal lesbian “priest,”
Rev. Dr. Gwynne Guibord, to address Catholic educators.

In Arlington former head of the Office of Child Protection, Jennifer
Alvaro, told a meeting of parish Directors of Religious Education in
2004 that children are “safer with homosexuals than with heterosexuals.”6
Her statement shocked parents. The fact is homosexuals molest children
and commit crimes at a much higher rate than heterosexuals, as shown
by numerous studies including a 1996 survey of 12,283 non-institutionalized
adults by the U.S. Center for Disease Control.7

Researchers Brian Clowes and David Sonnier, reviewing many studies and
statements of homosexuals, found a “natural link between a homosexual
orientation and child sexual abuse.”8 Despite overwhelming evidence, most
bishops ignore the threat of homosexuality and redirect the focus to
innocent laity. In April 2005 Fr. Terry Specht, Alvaro’s successor,
told a meeting of concerned parents which I attended, he didn’t
care if a person was “heterosexual, homosexual, or metrosexual.”9 This willful blindness to a major cause
of the scandals undermines the laity’s confidence in their shepherds.

Meanwhile, bishops continue to reassign deviant priests. Bishop John
Steinbock moved Rev. Jean-Michael Lastiri to another Fresno parish following
treatment at a Maryland facility.10
Lastiri solicited on the internet for same-sex partners and embezzled
$60,000 from his Merced, California parish. When sensible parishioners
rebelled the bishop castigated them in the parish bulletin.11 In another California diocese Fr.
James Mott, active in the notorious on-line site for homosexual priests,
St. Sebastian’s Angels, was removed from his parish, but relocated
to a rectory adjacent to a boys’ school. He frequently hears confessions
and says Mass there. Fr. Mott was vocations director for his Augustinian
province for twelve years and actively recruited homosexuals to the
seminary.12
These are by no means isolated situations.

If the laity hoped the bishops would use their June 2005 meeting in
Chicago to address homosexuality in the priesthood they were disappointed.
Diogenes, the feisty columnist of Catholic World Report (CWR),
commented on a Washington Times article stating the bishops would
“sidestep” the issue of homosexuals in ministry. “Why…was
[sidestepping the issue] a foregone conclusion? Because the question
of whether gays should be ordained cannot be addressed without first
addressing a considerably more explosive question: the number of bishop-disputants
who are themselves gay and have a profound personal interest that there
be no public examination of the connections between their sexual appetites,
their convictions, and their conduct of office.”13 Diogenes named ten homosexual bishops “whose
misbehavior has gotten them in trouble with the law – and that
so deeply that their proclivities were objectively undeniable.”14

In Chicago the bishops stated they would follow the Vatican directive
on homosexuals in the priesthood when it was released; but it’s
hard to take most of them seriously, since they consistently fail to
implement other Vatican directives. Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the document
on Catholic higher education requiring adherence to Church teaching
and a mandata for Catholic theologians, was a dead letter the
minute the ink was dry. The Cardinal Newman Society regularly documents
dissenters teaching and speaking at Catholic colleges and universities.15

One can make the case that bishops ignoring the 1961 directive banning
ordination of homosexuals enabled the sex abuse crisis. They were no
more ready to follow the 2002 letter from the Congregation for Divine
Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments stating that, “Ordination
to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual
tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral
point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual
tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.”16
Reaction to the latest Vatican document has been more of the same with
many bishops indicating it would be business as usual.

Before an individual commits his first act of sexual abuse he has no
criminal record, but there are behaviors that predict the likelihood
of abuse. For example, those ensnared in pornography, a progressive
addiction, are likely to act on it at some point. Studies show that
the need for stimulus increases until action is virtually inevitable.17
But buying and viewing adult pornography is legal, so those who
indulge in it won’t show up in background checks. Nonetheless,
they are time bombs in the parish community and should be removed when
exposed.

In
the diocese of Arlington, Fr. James Haley reported to Bishop Paul Loverde
several priests with extensive pornography collections, a fact he discovered
when he lived with them in parish rectories. Instead of dealing with
the problem, the bishop suspended Fr. Haley, put him under a precept
of silence, and removed his faculties.18 He banished Fr. Haley
from diocesan property but allowed the porn-addicted priests to continue
living in parish rectories. Although there is no evidence these priests
physically abused minors, they were a major risk to their parishioners.

The bishops have paid little if any attention to the serious problem
of sexual immorality among consenting adults including priests who solicit
sex from age-appropriate partners. Typically, only when a cleric’s
evil behavior is publicly aired does action follow. In 1996 the activist
group Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) sought Bishop Daniel Ryan’s
dismissal for soliciting gay prostitutes in the Diocese of Springfield,
Illinois. Prior to going public they tried to handle the matter quietly
in-house. When that failed, they held a press conference. Finally, three
years later, Ryan was forced to resign. Even then his successor, Bishop
George Lucas, allowed him to perform confirmations, give priests’
retreats, and exercise other ministries around the diocese.19
Only in 2002, after allegations he abused a minor, was Ryan finally
suspended.20 His case is not uncommon
as Diogenes’ list of shameful bishops indicates.

Many Catholic college campuses are schools for scandal promoting the
obscene play, The Vagina Monologues, gay pride events, condom
give-aways, etc. These are all perfectly legal but scandalous.
Bishops overlook immorality on college campuses apparently because the
individuals being sinned against are over eighteen.

Which raises another question. A primary agenda of the homosexual community
is to eliminate the age of consent.21
If that happens will the bishops revise their policies downward since
consensual sex with these younger children will no longer be illegal?
If past experience rules most bishops will take no action against legal
activities unless they create a public scandal

Last year the review board for the Archdiocese of Seattle recommended
that the bishops look at this problem more closely, saying, “[T]he
vulnerability of persons to sexual exploitation does not end at age
18. We have seen instances where priests abused their authority and
caused harm by engaging in sexual relationships with adults. Whether
viewed from a violation of the vow of celibacy or as a matter of the
abuse of authority, we believe the Church should address this issue
more formally.”22

Those who engage in homosexual relations with adults while not themselves
abusing children may be the channel for abuse by exposing children to
sexual predators. Fr. Lastiri did not himself molest children. He did,
however, provide an unpaid job and housing for one of his partners,
Joe Banuelos, who sexually assaulted a six-year-old.23 Fingerprinting can’t
prevent this type of abuse. Homosexual clergy will not require their
partners to be fingerprinted. Parents may believe their children are
safe on parish grounds and be less vigilant because of a false sense
of security.

3) Fingerprinting violates privacy and demeans the innocent

Most Americans are desensitized to invasions of their privacy. From
the misuse of social security numbers, to information sharing between
government and private institutions, even grocery stores tracking our
buying habits – we are accustomed to it. Privacy advocates warn
that so many private companies and law enforcement agencies are exchanging
fingerprint information that there is increasing risk of someone replicating
and misusing it. “There are going to be data spills.”24 And there is no reason to believe
things will end with fingerprinting. Why not DNA testing, voice identification,
and retinal screening? Once one accepts the proposition that privacy
can be violated, no logical reason remains (except prohibitive cost)
to exclude other identification tools.

While invasion of privacy is a major concern, the attitude of chancery
officials that those who oppose fingerprinting “have something
to hide” is downright insulting. It creates unjustly a Catholic
suspect class of non-fingerprinted individuals damaging relationships
among parishioners and between parishioners and the pastor, not to mention
the bishop. But remember, bishops knew the priests who committed
sexual abuse. They shielded them from disclosure and moved them from
parish to parish or between dioceses. Often bishops and diocesan lawyers
cajoled or threatened parents not to press criminal charges. Fingerprinting
would not have exposed abusers because bishops hid their crimes.

Instead of focusing on the innocent, the bishops should ban homosexuals
from the priesthood and hold themselves accountable for their dereliction
of duty. Resignation, contrition, amendment of life, and atonement are
appropriate responses to the crisis, not fingerprinting the innocent.

After the bishops’ meeting in Dallas in 2002, which set the ball
rolling for fingerprinting, the local chapter of Catholics United for
the Faith (CUF) held a panel discussion to review results. Participants
included Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Phillip Lawler, editor
of CWR. Lawler pointed out that while the sex abuse scandals involved
four percent of Catholic priests who molested children (mostly adolescent
boys), 66 percent of the bishops engaged in the cover-up. Had the bishops
acted responsibly, the abusers’ careers would have been cut short
after one incident.

Bishop Bruskewitz, in reflecting on the Dallas meeting, described his
brethren as “this hapless bench of bishops.” Not a single
one supported his motion to analyze the relationship between the scandal
and the issues of homosexuality and theological dissent. Rod Dreher
of National Review described the CUF meeting saying, “When
an audience member asked Bruskewitz why Pope John Paul II has given
the church in the U.S. so many lousy bishops, [he] said he had no idea.
Then he cited a letter that the medieval St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote
to a pope of his day, warning the pontiff that if he (the pope) was
going to be sent to hell, it would be because he failed to get rid of
bad bishops. ‘I did pass that letter on to [the current pope],’....
He went on to praise the Holy Father for coming up with beautiful words
and noble sentiments, but to fault him for failing to implement them
through responsible governing of the Church.”[25]

Fr. John Perricone, founder of Christifideles, described the
Dallas meeting as “carefully constructed to quell the media howling
and adroitly move the scandal off center stage.”26 Subsequent actions appear to be a
further “adroit move” to shift blame to the laity and distract
public attention from the bishops’ own culpability. After thousands
of children victimized in the abuse scandals, the bishops’ strategy,
which makes the innocent suspect, adds insult to injury.

4) Fingerprinting implies secular authority over the Church

From the point of Church/State relations, there are two compelling reasons
to oppose mandatory fingerprinting. First, it implies that the Church
herself is a danger to her members and cannot protect them without oversight
from secular authorities. This turns reality on its head. It is the
Church over the centuries that converted barbaric nations and protected
citizens from abuse by the state, not the reverse. Pope Leo XIII addressed
this in many encyclicals in which he described the proper relations
between Church and State.

[The
Church] is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature
and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will
and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provisions for its maintenance
and action. And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the
noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority,
nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any
manner dependent upon it….To wish the Church to be subject
to the civil power in the exercise of her duty is a great folly and
a sheer injustice.27
(emphasis added)

Second,
by turning over responsibility for oversight to secular authorities,
the Church implies dependence on the State and willingness to relinquish
her authority. While the current relationship is voluntary, it sets
a precedent for the government at some future date to claim the right
to control the Church and her members. This is a very real danger in
view of the Justice Department’s keeping illegal files on pro-lifers.
Former Attorney General Janet Reno developed an extensive secret database
called VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy,
which entailed massive record keeping on pro-life leaders, even those
who had never engaged in activism. VAAPCON collected information on
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (now USCCB), among others.28

In Arlington, diocesan authorities tell the laity that fingerprints
and background files are not maintained in a database.29
As they are well aware, their assertion is untrue.30 The Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia
§52-46 establishes a database of all fingerprints submitted for background
checks. They are archived and cross-checked when a criminal is apprehended
and processed. Chris Manion reported in the June 16 issue of The
Wanderer that, “Elvira Johnson, a supervisor at the Virginia
State Police Crime Lab, confirms that… ‘the digital images
[of the submitted fingerprints] are kept on archive’ on the state
police computer system.’”31
In the Archdiocese of Washington “prints are sent to Maryland’s
Criminal Justice Information System, run against state criminal records
and then forwarded to the FBI.”32

The technology used to transfer inked prints to digital files allows
fast search, retrieval and comparison; but it is not foolproof. Prominent
fingerprint expert David Grieve says, “There’s a risk that
not only would they exclude someone incorrectly – we have the
potential to identify someone incorrectly.”33 That happened in 2004 when the FBI misidentified Oregon
lawyer Brandon Mayfield as a terrorist suspect in the Madrid train bombing.
They incorrectly matched his prints to one found at the scene. Fingerprint
examiner Pat Wertheim expressed concern. “The fingerprint community
is really anxious…to understand what happened…. Obviously,
the larger the database, the greater the possibility of two fingers
having roughly similar sets of coordinates (emphasis added). It’s
an issue that has troubled some of us in the business.”34 Troubling indeed! It
should trouble the innocent jeopardized by their bishops as hundreds
of thousands of fingerprints are added to the national database.

In view of the growing hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism
in particular, a program to identify all the priests in the country
and many of the most active Catholic laity is foolhardy. Pope Benedict
XVI and his predecessor, coming from countries controlled by Nazi and
Communist tyrants would certainly understand the dangers inherent in
a national registration program for Catholics. Mandatory fingerprinting
allows the State to collect information easily without the political
fallout of mandatory state registration. Only those with no sense of
history can fail to see the potential for abuse of such a program.

5) Fingerprinting drives a wedge between the flock and their
pastor

In a number of places laity are establishing programs for youth outside
the parish. Fr. Terry Specht informed parishioners at St. John the Baptist
in Front Royal, Virginia that if a CCD program could not recruit sufficient
teachers willing to submit to fingerprinting, the parish will suspend
its CCD program.35 This deplorable attitude may force parents to develop
their own religion programs with no oversight by pastors and great loss
of talent to the parish community.

As long as this policy toward “catechesis” continues, the
problem of physical and spiritual abuse of the faithful, including minors,
will not end.

6) Mandatory fingerprinting is the work of bureaucrats, not
apostles

Apostles save souls. They teach the truths of the faith, discipline
those in error, and pursue and foster personal holiness. They address
sin and scandal often at great personal cost, even their lives.
The blood of martyrs is the seedbed of the faith. Apostles took Christ's
message from Jerusalem to the entire world and it was their zeal for
the Gospel and their self-sacrifice that transformed western civilization.

Bureaucrats, on the other hand, develop rules, procedures, and action
plans which may have little to do with the problem being addressed.
They tend to build empires where those at the "bottom" must
go thru multiple decision levels to get action from the "top."
Often when things go wrong bureaucrats transfer responsibility and blame
to protect themselves and their organizations. Fr. Jerry Poskorsky was
on target when he wrote in Catholic World Report, “If Martin Luther
taught ‘salvation by faith alone,’ it might be said that
the bishops’ approach is ‘salvation by policies, procedures,
and protocols alone’…. [M]any of our bishops do not really
believe in the need for penance and reparation.”36 He went on to say,
“We are dealing with a failure in truth and courage, not a breakdown
of policy and procedure…. It is a moral imperative to break the
vicious culture of silence…which has so damaged the Church in
our time.”37

When bishops act like bureaucrats, the Body of Christ suffers because
the organization and the reputation of its leaders become more important
than the people they serve. Unfortunately, with a few holy exceptions,
our bishops act more like bureaucrats than apostles, one of the principle
reasons for our current crisis in the Church.

SUMMARY

Mandatory fingerprinting and background checks cannot solve a problem
that is fundamentally rooted in a crisis of faith and a failure to govern.
Dissent is so pandemic across the country that well-known Jesuit Fr.
John Hardon, S.J. who died in 2000 warned for years that many dioceses
in America would completely disappear. His words echo those of eminent
theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand who in 1973 lamented one of the “most
horrifying and widespread diseases” in the Church, “the
lethargy of the guardians of the Faith… [who] fear men more than
God. The words of St. John Bosco apply to them: ‘The power of
evil men lives on the cowardice of the good.’”38
Today most bishops act more from fear of the lawsuit than fear of the
Lord. Instead of embracing their God-given mission to teach, govern,
and sanctify they filter their actions through lawyers and wordly advisors.
That must end. The answer to the crisis in the Church is not to be found
by imitating the secular world. The answer is to restore the true faith
founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter. As Fr. Pokorsky advocates,
“The Church’s authentic moral teaching must be our compass,
with canon law our practical guide.”39 This is “the
way” of the apostle. Fingerprinting and background checks are
the way of the worldly bureaucrat.

1
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, “The Nature and Scope
of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons
in the United States,” published by the USCCB and available
at www.usccb.org.

2
Shawne K. Wickham, “‘Celibate chastity’ will get
new focus as church looks to prevent abuse,” New Hampshire
Union Leader, November 18, 2002.

3
John Burger, “What is Going On in the U.S.,” National
Catholic Register, April 21-27, 2002.

6
Witnesses from diocesan meeting for Directors of Religious Education
held in Arlington, VA on April 21, 2004 to discuss implementation
of Good Touch Bad Touch which was later abandoned due to lay opposition.